Keira

[YouNoob]

Live tweets from Belstaffie here:

mobile.twitter.com/Belstaffie/status/1333716720176033793

@highame

www.spectator.co.uk/article/keira-bell-s-landmark-victory-against-hormone-blockers-for-children Just a piece in the Spectator by Julie Bindell

That's a really good piece.

I hope that the gender clinics will now put all their resources into watchful waiting therapies to help these children instead of throwing their hands in the air and having tantrums. We need to support young people with dysphoria urgently.

@ThatIsNotMyUsername

Kiera knew as a teenager that what she wanted most in the whole world was to be a boy. She didn’t just daydream. She acted in it and took steps to adapt her body to a close as dammit to a boy as possible with the appliance if science.

Except she didn’t know that she actually wanted to be a girl.

Almost anyone who has ever been a teenager is able to come up with a list of things we were completely certain about as teens but then changed our minds about later. Mostly they are things that don’t matter (I will never get a tattoo, I will never drive a boring car like my mum, I will always want pink hair). But when it comes to the big things we, as a society, protect teens from irreversible decisions.

On the one hand I’m pleased that the court has upheld this principle, and I was celebrating earlier. On the other, though, I now find myself feeling rather more angry that there are already hundreds of teenagers for whom this judgement comes too late. What the hell were these health care professionals thinking when prescribing these drugs to children?! Surely it is obvious to anyone with half a brain that children are incapable of deciding to give up their future sexual function and their ability to reproduce.

thank you, Sultana.

Two articles in the Times:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/994f7e22-33ec-11eb-a008-76ae1654e866?shareToken=d43ce5b5ce086c710253f4535176da71

and:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/98c03eba-33f1-11eb-8874-74fdd66018b3?shareToken=9837d976ab896e26e3cfcb5a3f63f54e

The judgement basically says "look Tavistock, look NHS, your framework and your evidence base is shit, it's drifted far away from Gillick, get it into alignment with Gillick and you should be good to go".

Shouldn't be a problem right? It is a problem though because the gender identity ideology as applied to children is fundamentally incompatible with Gillick.

@MammothMashup

What a horrible question. "Do you regret this judgement on behalf of those teens who want to transition"....!

Does the bbc regret fooling children into thinking they had the wrong body via various programmes and online content?

Anyone see the Anton Ferdinand documentary last night?

Just that but for Keira on a slightly different subject.

I find the italicised sentence below particularly telling, regarding the strength of evidence to inform use of PBs in children. The court was provided with peer-reviewed published data from one dutch institution. That's it folks.

"No precise numbers are available from GIDS (as to the percentage of patients who proceed from PBs to CSH). There was some evidence based on a random sample of those who in 2019-2020 had been discharged or had what is described as a closing summary from GIDS. However the court did have the evidence of Dr de Vries. Dr de Vries is a founding board member of EPATH (European Professional Association for Transgender Health) and a member of the WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) Committee on Children and Adolescents and its Chair between 2010 and 2016, and leads the Centre of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria at the Amsterdam University Medical Centre in the Netherlands (CEGD). This is the institution which has led the way in the use of PBs for young people in the Netherlands; and is the sole source of published peer reviewed data (in respect of the treatment we are considering) produced to the court. She says that of the adolescents who started puberty suppression, only 1.9 per cent stopped the treatment and did not proceed to CSH. " (para 57)

The comments on the Mermaids facebook live are . One man is suggesting that the law be changed so that children's consent can override any objections from parents as a default position.

These people are ridiculous.

She says that of the adolescents who started puberty suppression, only 1.9 per cent stopped the treatment and did not proceed to CSH. " (para 57)

Which really backs up the fact that CSH do need to be considered when consenting to PBs

Being trans and the whole transitioning process will still exist with or without puberty blockers. But the decisions to make the bodily and chemical alterations that some people desire (to round-off square jaws, surgically remove breasts, shape penis-like appendages, hollow out the pelvic area to construct vagina-like orifices etc... ) will be decisions taken by ADULTS, who fully understand the implications of drug contraindications, risks of anaesthesia, the enormity of major elective surgery etc...

People like Paris Lees and Munroe Bergdorf have gone through some of these procedures and are a completely happy with the results it would seem. They look amazing and that’s obviously very important to them. Facial feminisation can totally change your look. (I could do with it myself!)

Give gender dysphoric children good therapy and emotional support. Let them dress how they want and change their names. Tell them that if they want to adjust their bodies in the future then they can.

I would explain to any child that the Court decision today is just like pressing a ‘pause button’ on a medical process that is irreversible and that they may have gone on to regret. We are trying to protect them and it comes from a place of love, not from a place of transphobia.

I wonder what this means for the Sandyford (Glasgow) as the ruling only covers E&W. Will there be health tourism to Scotland, or will the Sandyford do the sensible thing and follow the ruling anyway?

I've been reading this thread and those similar
in light of my friend who started the surgery process the day they turned 18.
It was the right pathway for them.
What was missing was decent mental health support as a teen.
They have never had any facial surgery because they looked utterly androgynous before surgery so cause no raised eyebrows in toilets

I hope that Kiera's plea for

• less homophobia
• less misogyny
• more mental health support

is heard above all else

I can't believe this guy quoted anecdotal evidence to support administering experimental treatment (para 101)..... the more of this report I read the more my jaw is dropping....

"When asked by the court what evidence there was that the PBs did achieve the purpose of alleviating distress, in the light of the lack of published research, Mr McKendrick pointed to the evidence of experienced endocrinologists in both Trusts who could see the real benefits of the treatment."

@LorettasBox

The comments on the Mermaids facebook live are . One man is suggesting that the law be changed so that children's consent can override any objections from parents as a default position.

These people are ridiculous.

I saw someone say they can't wait for America to step in and punish us (the UK) for our human rights atrocities ('cause not sterilising children at their will is a breach of human rights), the UK will be shown up for the monsters that we are, etc.

Pathetic.

People like Paris Lees and Munroe Bergdorf have gone through some of these procedures and are a completely happy with the results it would seem

They have fame too as a result. They have constant validation via that. They would have very little without their sex change. (I know I've taken your comment out of context there)

It's glamourised; many YouTubers have a similar identity and reason to continue being that identity.

I want to hear from from bernandos, NSPCC etc who at the start of the review clearly supported the Tavistock/Mermaids position.

Do they stand by this? Or will take some time to reflect on their position.

Also the public figures, journalists and media organisations, whose position is that anyone showing concern about using experimental medicine on children, was transphobic. I hope they just stop and think.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

She says that of the adolescents who started puberty suppression, only 1.9 per cent stopped the treatment and did not proceed to CSH. " (para 57)

Which really backs up the fact that CSH do need to be considered when consenting to PBs

Very much so, and that is the view set out in the judgement.

@LorettasBox

The comments on the Mermaids facebook live are . One man is suggesting that the law be changed so that children's consent can override any objections from parents as a default position.

These people are ridiculous.

I wonder why grown men want children to be able to consent to what they do with their bodies without parental oversight?

On BBC 6 o'clock news NOW.

@nauticant re the question Evan Davis asked Keira - I agree - what a nasty question to ask a young person. Seriously, and a young person who has been through so much. What a complete arse.

I've read the whole judgement now. It's very clear and readable, highly recommended. Paragraph by paragraph it considers every argument put forward and every piece of evidence on its own merits. When each piece of evidence has been so carefully considered, it's almost impossible to argue with the conclusions reached.

As previous posters have commented, the points in the statements put out by Mermaids and Stonewall have already been directly addressed in the judgement. They are spinning in the air.

He's a total arse. I miss Eddie Mair (although I've no idea what his position is on genderwoobollocks)

Just read the comments on the Mermaids FB
talk about grabbing the wrong end of the stick with both hands

They've got absolutely zilch. Anecdotes and emotional blackmail. Is that it?

Tbf, at least they are consistent. This is all they have ever had.